IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 11^th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 1136 of 2009 HEMCHAND JAIN Versus RAMBABU SONI (DEAD) THROUGH LR Appearance:

ShriSaketAgrawal - Advocate for the appellant.

ShriNitin Jain and ShriBrijesh Singh Lodhi - Advocates for the respondent.

J U D G M E N T This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2009 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Tikamgarh in civil appeal no.62-A/2008 reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2003 passed by Addl. Civil Judge Class-I, Tikamgarh in civil suit no.164-A/2006 whereby Trial Court decreed the appellant/plaintiff's suit for eviction on the ground of change of user available under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') which was filed on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a),(b),(c) & (h) of the Act and in civil appeal filed by original defendant-RambabuSoni (dead) through LR, First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of eviction passed by Trial Court on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.

2. In short, the facts are that the appellant-Hemchand Jain along with his mother Smt. Betibai (now dead), instituted the suit for eviction with the allegations that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by written agreement of tenancy dtd.02.06.1987 (Ex.P/1) on rent of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT Rs.475/-specifically forrunning a cycle business. It is alleged that despite making demand of arrears of rent, the defendant did not pay arrears of rent and sublet the rented premises to one Hariram. It is also alleged that originally the shop was given for startinga cycle business, but the defendant has started asweet shop. It is also alleged that the plaintiff needs the rented premises for raising construction and for that purpose he is having sufficient funds and sanctioned plan and map etc. On inter alia allegations the suit was filed.

3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that he is not in arrears of rent and has not sublet the shop to Hariram, but he is servant of the defendant. It is also alleged that the shop was taken on rent for composite need of business and residence and since beginning the defendant is residing in the back portion of the shop along with his family members. It is also contended that the plaintiff does not require the premises for repairing etc. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties, decreed the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, however, refused to pass decree on other grounds vide judgment and decree dated

11.09.2003.

5. Upon filing appeal by the defendant, First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.08.2009 allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and dismissed the suit in its entirety and at the same time, cross-objection filed by the appellant/plaintiff was also dismissed.

6. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court, instant second appeal was preferred by the plaintiff which Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT was admitted for final hearing on 12.09.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:-

"i) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court in setting aside the decree for ejectment on the ground enumerated under Section

12(1)(c) of the Act is not perverse and arbitrary ?

ii) Whether in a case where initially the entire suit accommodation was let for non-residential purpose i.e. for running a Shop and even after holding that the respondent/tenant is using the back portion for residential purposes even then not affirming the decree passed by the trial Court under